Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 345 (ALL)

Udai Narayan v. State Of U. P.

2019-02-08

RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM

body2019
JUDGMENT : Ram Krishna Gautam, J. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by Udai Narayan against State of U.P. and two others, with this contention that First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as 'F.I.R.') was lodged on 29.6.2005 regarding the occurrence, which took place on 21.6.2005 at 11:30 A.M. as Case Crime No. 160 of 2005, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504 and 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Mathura, against applicant and others, with allegation that applicant in connivance with other persons has prepared a forged will deed on which photo of some other person was pasted and informant has been shown as dead person in forged death certificate and on the basis of same, names were got mutated in revenue records. This was for grabbing the property in question. Police, after investigation, submitted charge-sheet against applicant and other accused persons, whereas registered will-deed was executed in favour of applicant on 7.1.2005, which was annexed as Annexure No. 3 to the affidavit. A Civil Suit No. 186 of 2006 (Pandit Udai Narayan Versus Mahant Ram Swaroop Das) was filed and is still pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division-VIth, Mathura. Ram Swaroop Das has filed his written statement admitting the case of plaintiff. Opposite party No. 3 has filed an affidavit before the Court of Tehsildar in revenue proceedings on 10.11.1994, stating therein that Kamal Das went at heavenly abode. Present Kamal Das, who had filed this F.I.R., is an imposter. Police has neither recorded the statement nor arrested that imposter and filed this charge-sheet, hence, this petition of quashing the entire criminal proceedings. 2. Counter affidavit by State was filed with this contention that F.I.R. regarding execution of forged will by pasting photo of imposter and manufacturing a forged death certificate, thereby, mutation of property in name of accused persons was investigated. Accusation was substantiated and charge-sheet was filed. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that it is a civil dispute for which civil suit is pending before the Civil Court, which will decide as to whether the will was forged one or not. Accusation was substantiated and charge-sheet was filed. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that it is a civil dispute for which civil suit is pending before the Civil Court, which will decide as to whether the will was forged one or not. The present informant is himself an imposter, whereas Kamal Das, who had executed will, had died for which death certificate is there and revenue Court has mutated the name of applicant, hence, this proceeding is an abuse of process to be seen by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for giving ends of justice towards petitioner. 4. Civil suit regarding validity of will is admittedly pending with the written statement of some other person admitting the death of Kamal Das and execution of will by that Kamal Das. Meaning thereby, present Kamal Das, who had lodged this F.I.R. is dead, is not in question before above court ,whereas the very contention for this criminal proceeding is that he is alive but has been fraudulently said to be dead by manufacturing a forged death certificate and this accusation was investigated in which charge-sheet was filed, hence, the validity of factual evidence, which is course of trial by Trial Judge, is not to be analyzed by this Court under exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. as has been propounded at many times by Apex Court and this Court also:- 5. Saving of inherent power of High Court, as given under Section 482 Cr.P.C, provides that nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Meaning thereby this inherent power is with High Court (I) to make such order as may be necessary to give effect to any other order under this Code (II) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court (III) or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. But Apex Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Gaurishetty Mahesh, JT 2010 (6) SC 588: (2010) 6 SCALE 767 : 2010 Cr. But Apex Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Gaurishetty Mahesh, JT 2010 (6) SC 588: (2010) 6 SCALE 767 : 2010 Cr. LJ 3844 has propounded that "While exercising jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable apprehension of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge/Court". In another subsequent Hamida v. Rashid, (2008) 1 SCC 474 , hon'ble Apex Court propounded that "Ends of justice would be better served if valuable time of the Court is spent in hearing those appeals rather than entertaining petitions under Section 482 at an interlocutory stage which after filed with some oblique motive in order to circumvent the prescribed procedure, or to delay the trial which enable to win over the witness or may disinterested in giving evidence, ultimately resulting in miscarriage of Justice". In again another subsequent Monica Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 8 SCC 781 , the Apex Court has propounded "Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself." While interpreting this jurisdiction of High Court Apex Court in Popular Muthiah v. State, Represented by Inspector of Police, (2006) 7 SCC 296 has propounded "High Court can exercise jurisdiction suo motu in the interest of justice. It can do so while exercising other jurisdictions such as appellate or revisional jurisdiction. No formal application for invoking inherent jurisdiction is necessary. Inherent jurisdiction can be exercised in respect of substantive as well as procedural matters. It can as well be exercised in respect of incidental or supplemental power irrespective of nature of proceedings". 6. It can do so while exercising other jurisdictions such as appellate or revisional jurisdiction. No formal application for invoking inherent jurisdiction is necessary. Inherent jurisdiction can be exercised in respect of substantive as well as procedural matters. It can as well be exercised in respect of incidental or supplemental power irrespective of nature of proceedings". 6. Regarding prevention of abuse of process of Court, Apex Court in Dhanlakshmi v. R.Prasana Kumar, (1990) CrLJ 320 (DB): AIR 1990 SC 494 has propounded "To prevent abuse of the process of the Court, High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under section 482 could quash the proceedings but there would be justification for interference only when the complaint did not disclose any offence or was frivolous vexatious or oppressive" as well as in State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan, (1989) CrLJ 1005: AIR 1989 SC 1 , Apex Court propounded "In exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 High Court would not embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence or not". Meaning thereby, exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is within the limits, propounded as above. 7. Under above set up of facts and proposition of law, this case is of no merit. Dismissed accordingly. 8. However, if the applicant surrenders before the Court concerned, withing thiry days from today and applies for bail before the Trial Court, as is being argued and prayed by learned counsel for the applicant, the trial Magistrate shall expedite disposal of bail application in view of law settled by this court in Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 9. Office to communicate this order to concerned Court through FAX, E-mail as well as speed post.